201223-128535, 201223-128535

Veteran served on active duty from October 1960 to January 1970 and filed a claim for service connection/compensable rating for hyperthyroidism.
VA currently rated the Veteran’s hyperthyroidism as noncompensable effective May 17, 2011 (DCs 7915–7900).
Veteran filed a December 2020 Board appeal (VA Form 10182) electing the Hearing Lane; Board limited review to evidence before the November 12, 2020 rating decision, hearing evidence, and evidence submitted within 90 days after the hearing.
The only VA exam of record (October 2020) is internally inconsistent: it notes evidence of hyperthyroidism in 2011 but lists diagnosis as 2017 and fails to specify when in 2017 the diagnosis occurred.
The October 2020 examiner did not address prior medical history of hypothyroidism or documented thyroid enlargement noted in July 2016.
Veteran’s representative requested examiner qualifications after the November 2020 AOJ decision; Board found those requests untimely for Board proceedings and remanded for an adequate retrospective VA exam addressing diagnosis timing, symptom manifestations (May 17, 2011–Dec 2017), and thyroid enlargement/disfigurement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of October 2020 VA examination	October 2020 exam is unreliable and lacks rationale for diagnosis date; not adequate for adjudication	AOJ relied on exam; no specific defense presented to Board on adequacy	Exam is inadequate due to internal inconsistency and lack of rationale; remand for a new exam under duty to assist
Relevant diagnosis date/retrospective opinion	Diagnosis date is critical to effective date and entitlement; examiner must opine when hyperthyroidism began	Board limited to existing record but must ensure adequate development	Remand ordered for retrospective opinions on when hyperthyroidism began and associated symptoms (May 17, 2011–Dec 2017) with rationale
Failure to address prior hypothyroidism and thyroid enlargement	Prior hypothyroidism and July 2016 enlargement are material and were not considered by examiner	AOJ did not obtain an opinion addressing these medical facts	Examiner must assess prior hypothyroidism, evaluate July 2016 enlargement, and address possible disfigurement on remand
Request for examiner qualifications (CV)	Representative requested examiner qualifications; needed for duty to assist	Board: duty to assist (and CV requests) pertains to AOJ development; requests submitted after AOJ decision are untimely for Board	Request deemed untimely for Board; Veteran may pursue CV/qualifications with the AOJ on remand

Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (VA must provide adequate medical examination/opinion under the duty to assist)
Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008) (medical opinions must contain sufficient rationale tying conclusions to supporting data)
Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (duty to assist includes providing information on examiner qualifications/CV)